ments of peace and war. But the merit of the physician was received with universal favour and respect: the barbarians, who despised death, might be apprehensive of disease; and the haughty conqueror trembled in the presence of a captive to whom he ascribed perhaps an imaginary power of prolonging or preserving his life.50 The Huns might be provoked to insult the misery of their slaves, over whom they exercised a despotic command ;31 but their manners were not susceptible of a refined system of oppression, and the efforts of courage and diligence were often recompensed by the gift of freedom. The historian Priscus, whose embassy is a source of curious instruction, was accosted in the camp of Attila by a stranger, who saluted him in the Greek language, but whose dress and figure displayed the appearance of a wealthy Scythian. In the siege of Viminiacum he had lost, according to his own account, his fortune and liberty: he became the slave of Onegesius; but his faithful services against the Romans and the Acatzires had gradually raised him to the rank of the native Huns, to whom he was attached by the domestic pledges of a new wife and several children. The spoils of war had restored and improved his private property; he was admitted to the table of his former lord; and the apostate Greek blessed the hour of his captivity, since it had been the introduction to an happy and independent state, which he held by the honourable tenure of military service. This reflection naturally produced a dispute on the advantages and defects of the Roman government, which was severely arraigned by the apostate, and defended by Priscus in a prolix and feeble declamation. The freedman of Onegesius exposed, in true and lively colours, the vices of a declining empire of which he had so long been the victim ; the cruel absurdity of the Roman princes, unable to protect their subjects against the public enemy, unwilling to trust them with arms for their own defence; the intolerable weight of taxes, rendered still more oppressive by the intricate or arbitrary modes of collection; the obscurity of numerous and contradictory laws; the tedious and expensive forms of judicial proceedings; the partial administration of justice; and the universal corruption which increased the influence of the rich and aggravated the misfortunes of the poor. A sentiment of

30 Philip de Comines, in his admirable picture of the last moments of Lewis XI. (Mémoires, 1. vi. c. 12), represents the insolence of his physician, who, in five months, extorted 54,000 crowns and a rich bishopric from the stern avaricious tyrant.

31 Priscus (p. 61 [p. 194, ed. Bonn]) extols the equity of the Roman laws, which protected the life of a slave. Occidere solent (says Tacitus of the Germans) non disciplinâ et severitate, sed impetu et irâ, ut inimicum, nisi quòd impune. De Moribus Germ. c. 25. The Heruli, who were the subjects of Attila, claimed and exercised the power of life and death over their slaves. See a remarkable instance in the second book of Agathias.

A.D. 446.

TREATY OF PEACE.

205

patriotic sympathy was at length revived in the breast of the fortunate exile, and he lamented with a flood of tears the guilt or weakness of those magistrates who had perverted the wisest and most salutary institutions.32

Treaty of

peace beAttila and

tween

the Eastern

A.D. 446.

The timid or selfish policy of the Western Romans had abandoned the Eastern empire to the Huns.33 The loss of armies and the want of discipline or virtue were not supplied by the personal character of the monarch. Theodosius might still affect the style as well as the title of Invincible Augustus, empire, but he was reduced to solicit the clemency of Attila, who imperiously dictated these harsh and humiliating conditions of peace. I. The emperor of the East resigned, by an express or tacit convention, an extensive and important territory which stretched along the southern banks of the Danube, from Singidunum, or Belgrade, as far as Novæ, in the diocese of Thrace. The breadth was defined by the vague computation of fifteen days' journey; but, from the proposal of Attila to remove the situation of the national market, it soon appeared that he comprehended the ruined city of Naissus within the limits of his dominions. II. The king of the Huns required and obtained that his tribute or subsidy should be augmented from seven hundred pounds of gold to the annual sum of two thousand one hundred; and he stipulated the immediate payment of six thousand pounds of gold to defray the expenses, or to expiate the guilt, of the war. One might imagine that such a demand, which scarcely equalled the measure of private wealth, would have been readily discharged by the opulent empire of the East; and the public distress affords a remarkable proof of the impoverished, or at least of the disorderly, state of the finances. A large proportion of the taxes extorted from the people was detained and intercepted in their passage through the foulest channels to the treasury of Constantinople. The revenue was dissipated by Theodosius and his favourites in wasteful and profuse luxury, which was disguised by the names of Imperial magnificence or Christian charity. The immediate supplies had been exhausted by the unforeseen necessity of military preparations. A personal contribution, rigorously but capriciously imposed on the members of the senatorian order, was the only expedient that could disarm without loss of time the impatient avarice of Attila: and the poverty of the nobles compelled them to adopt the scandalous resource of expos

32 See the whole conversation in Priscus, p. 59-62 [p. 189-197, ed. Bonn]. 33 Nova iterum Orienti assurgit ruina.. quum nulla ab Occidentalibus ferrentu auxilia. Prosper-Tyro composed his Chronicle in the West; and his observation im plies a censure.

a Five in the last edition of Priscus. Niebuhr, Byz. Hist. p. 147.-M.

ing to public auction the jewels of their wives and the hereditary ornaments of their palaces.34 III. The king of the Huns appears to have established as a principle of national jurisprudence, that he could never lose the property which he had once acquired in the persons who had yielded either a voluntary or reluctant submission to his authority. From this principle he concluded, and the conclusions of Attila were irrevocable laws, that the Huns who had been taken prisoners in war should be released without delay and without ransom ; that every Roman captive who had presumed to escape should purchase his right to freedom at the price of twelve pieces of gold; and that all the barbarians who had deserted the standard of Attila should be restored without any promise or stipulation of pardon. In the execution of this cruel and ignominious treaty the Imperial officers were forced to massacre several loyal and noble deserters who refused to devote themselves to certain death; and the Romans forfeited all reasonable claims to the friendship of any Scythian people by this public confession that they were destitute either of faith or power to protect the suppliant who had embraced the throne of Theodosius. 3 The firmness of a single town, so obscure that except on this occasion it has never been mentioned by any historian or geothe Azimun- grapher, exposed the disgrace of the emperor and empire. Azimus, or Azimuntium, a small city of Thrace on the Illyrian borders,36 had been distinguished by the martial spirit of its youth, the skill and reputation of the leaders whom they had chosen, and their daring exploits against the innumerable host of the bar

Spirit of

tines.

35

34 According to the description, or rather invective, of Chrysostom, an auction of Byzantine luxury must have been very productive. Every wealthy house possessed a semicircular table of massy silver, such as two men could scarcely lift; a vase of solid gold of the weight of forty pounds; cups, dishes, of the same metal, &c.

35 The articles of the treaty, expressed without much order or precision, may be found in Priscus (p. 34, 35, 36, 37, 53, &c. [ed. Par.; p. 142-148, 178, &c., ed. Bonn]). Count Marcellinus dispenses some comfort by observing-1. That Attila himself solicited the peace and presents which he had formerly refused; and, 2dly, That, about the same time, the ambassadors of India presented a fine large tame tiger to the emperor Theodosius.

36 Priscus, p. 35, 36 [p. 143, 144, ed. Bonn]. Among the hundred and eighty-two forts or castles of Thrace enumerated by Procopius (de Edificiis, l. iv. c. xi. tom. ii. p. 92, edit. Paris [tom. iii. p. 306, ed. Bonn]), there is one of the name of Esimontou, whose position is doubtfully marked, in the neighbourhood of Anchialus and the Euxine Sea. The name and walls of Azimuntium might subsist till the reign of Justinian; but the race of its brave defenders had been carefully extirpated by the jealousy of the Roman princes."

A.D. 446.

EMBASSIES FROM ATTILA,

207

barians. Instead of tamely expecting their approach, the Azimuntines attacked, in frequent and successful sallies, the troops of the Huns, who gradually declined the dangerous neighbourhood, rescued from their hands the spoil and the captives, and recruited their domestic force by the voluntary association of fugitives and deserters. After the conclusion of the treaty Attila still menaced the empire with implacable war, unless the Azimuntines were persuaded or compelled to comply with the conditions which their sovereign had accepted. The ministers of Theodosius confessed, with shame and with truth, that they no longer possessed any authority over a society of men who so bravely asserted their natural independence; and the king of the Huns condescended to negociate an equal exchange with the citizens of Azimus. They demanded the restitution of some shepherds, who with their cattle had been accidentally surprised. A strict though fruitless inquiry was allowed; but the Huns were obliged to swear that they did not detain any prisoners belonging to the city before they could recover two surviving countrymen whom the Azimuntines had reserved as pledges for the safety of their lost companions. Attila, on his side, was satisfied and deceived by their solemn asseveration that the rest of the captives had been put to the sword; and that it was their constant practice immediately to dismiss the Romans and the deserters who had obtained the security of the public faith. This prudent and officious dissimulation may be condemned or excused by the casuists as they incline to the rigid decree of St. Augustin, or to the milder sentiment of St. Jerom and St. Chrysostom but every soldier, every statesman, must acknowledge that, if the race of the Azimuntines had been encouraged and multiplied, the barbarians would have ceased to trample on the majesty of the empire.3

:

37

from Attila

It would have been strange, indeed, if Theodosius had purchased, by the loss of honour, a secure and solid tranquillity, or Embassies if his tameness had not invited the repetition of injuries. to ConstanThe Byzantine court was insulted by five or six successive tinople. embassies ;38 and the ministers of Attila were uniformly instructed to press the tardy or imperfect execution of the last treaty; to produce the names of fugitives and deserters who were still protected by the

37 The peevish dispute of St. Jerom and St. Augustin, who laboured by different expedients to reconcile the seeming quarrel of the two apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, depends on the solution of an important question (Middleton's Works, vol. ii. p. 5– 10), which has been frequently agitated by catholic and protestant divines, and even by lawyers and philosophers of every age.

38 Montesquieu (Considérations sur la Grandeur, &c., c. xix.) has delineated, with a bold and easy pencil, some of the most striking circumstances of the pride of Attila und the disgrace of the Romans. He deserves the praise of having read the Fragments of Priscus, which have been too much disregarded.

1

empire; and to declare, with seeming moderation, that, unless their sovereign obtained complete and immediate satisfaction, it would be impossible for him, were it even his wish, to check the resentment of his warlike tribes. Besides the motives of pride and interest which might prompt the king of the Huns to continue this train of negociation, he was influenced by the less honourable view of enriching his favourites at the expense of his enemies. The Imperial treasury was exhausted to procure the friendly offices of the ambassadors and their principal attendants, whose favourable report might conduce to the maintenance of peace. The barbarian monarch was flattered by the liberal reception of his ministers; he computed with pleasure the value and splendour of their gifts, rigorously exacted the performance of every promise which would contribute to their private emolument, and treated as an important business of state the marriage of his secretary Constantius. 39 That Gallic adventurer, who was recommended by Aëtius to the king of the Huns, had engaged his service to the ministers of Constantinople for the stipulated reward of a wealthy and noble wife; and the daughter of Count Saturninus was chosen to discharge the obligations of her country. The reluctance of the victim, some domestic troubles, and the unjust confiscation of her fortune, cooled the ardour of her interested lover; but he still demanded, in the name of Attila, an equivalent alliance; and, after many ambiguous delays and excuses, the Byzantine court was compelled to sacrifice to this insolent stranger the widow of Armatius, whose birth, opulence, and beauty placed her in the most illustrious rank of the Roman matrons. For these importunate and oppressive embassies Attila claimed a suitable return: he weighed, with suspicious pride, the character and station of the Imperial envoys; but he condescended to promise that he would advance as far as Sardica to receive any ministers who had been invested with the consular dignity. The council of Theodosius eluded this proposal by representing the desolate and ruined condition of Sardica; and even ventured to insinuate that every officer of the army or household was qualified to treat with the most powerful princes of Scythia. Maximin,1o a

39 See Priscus, p. 69, 71, 72, &c. [p. 208, 213, ed. Bonn]. I would fain believe that this adventurer was afterwards crucified by the order of Attila, on a suspicion of treasonable practices; but Priscus (p. 57 [p. 185, 186, ed. Bonn]) has too plainly distinguished two persons of the name of Constantius, who, from the similar events of their lives, might have been easily confounded.

40 In the Persian treaty, concluded in the year 422, the wise and eloquent Maximin had been the assessor of Ardaburius (Socrates, 1. vii. c. 20). When Marcian ascended the throne, the office of Great Chamberlain was bestowed on Maximin, who is ranked in a public edict among the four principal ministers of state (Novell. ad Calc. Cod. Theod. p. 31 [tit. ii.]). He executed a civil and military commission in the eastern provinces; and his death was lamented by the savages of Ethiopia, whose incursions he had repressed. See Priscus, p. 40, 41 [p. 153, 154, ed. Bonn].